tamlyric wrote:What's with all the vitriol in this thread? Seems pretty pointless to me, unless, of course, people are just trying to entertain themselves. Can we not all agree that the OP was provisionally useful or informative?

I haven't read this whole thread, so sorry if this has already been addressed, but the conventional TLS wisdom has been that ITE since the T14 have seen such dramatic reductions in biglaw hiring it must be much worse for lower ranked schools, this data seems to counter that. All of the top 40 schools had placements of at least 20% between biglaw and Federal clirkships, which I don't think is that much worse than during the boom years, where as most of the T14 are down close to 50%, which is much worse than a few years ago. It looks like firms have made more of their hiring reductions by not going as deep in the classes of T14 schools rather than by not hiring top students at other T1 schools, maybe the recession has actually leveled the playing field a bit.

I haven't read this whole thread, so sorry if this has already been addressed, but the conventional TLS wisdom has been that ITE since the T14 have seen such dramatic reductions in biglaw hiring it must be much worse for lower ranked schools, this data seems to counter that. All of the top 40 schools had placements of at least 20% between biglaw and Federal clirkships, which I don't think is that much worse than during the boom years, where as most of the T14 are down close to 50%, which is much worse than a few years ago. It looks like firms have made more of their hiring reductions by not going as deep in the classes of T14 schools rather than by not hiring top students at other T1 schools, maybe the recession has actually leveled the playing field a bit.

Ignoring the debate about incorporating old clerkship data, this data is based on people who went through OCI in 2007 when hiring was much better. The reduction from some schools (Harvard, Columbia, NYU, Chicago) ocurred because many big NYC firms no offered some of their previous 2L SA's. This happened at some firms in other markets, but not to the same extent. C/O 2011 is different because firms at the last OCI adjusted and dramatically decreased the # of 2L SA's they brought on.

I haven't read this whole thread, so sorry if this has already been addressed, but the conventional TLS wisdom has been that ITE since the T14 have seen such dramatic reductions in biglaw hiring it must be much worse for lower ranked schools, this data seems to counter that. All of the top 40 schools had placements of at least 20% between biglaw and Federal clirkships, which I don't think is that much worse than during the boom years, where as most of the T14 are down close to 50%, which is much worse than a few years ago. It looks like firms have made more of their hiring reductions by not going as deep in the classes of T14 schools rather than by not hiring top students at other T1 schools, maybe the recession has actually leveled the playing field a bit.

Ignoring the debate about incorporating old clerkship data, this data is based on people who went through OCI in 2007 when hiring was much better. The reduction from some schools (Harvard, Columbia, NYU, Chicago) ocurred because many big NYC firms no offered some of their previous 2L SA's. This happened at some firms in other markets, but not to the same extent. C/O 2011 is different because firms at the last OCI adjusted and dramatically decreased the # of 2L SA's they brought on.

+1 these stats don't really tell us much of anything, since they're effectively two years behind, which ITE is a lifetime

I haven't read this whole thread, so sorry if this has already been addressed, but the conventional TLS wisdom has been that ITE since the T14 have seen such dramatic reductions in biglaw hiring it must be much worse for lower ranked schools, this data seems to counter that. All of the top 40 schools had placements of at least 20% between biglaw and Federal clirkships, which I don't think is that much worse than during the boom years, where as most of the T14 are down close to 50%, which is much worse than a few years ago. It looks like firms have made more of their hiring reductions by not going as deep in the classes of T14 schools rather than by not hiring top students at other T1 schools, maybe the recession has actually leveled the playing field a bit.

Ignoring the debate about incorporating old clerkship data, this data is based on people who went through OCI in 2007 when hiring was much better. The reduction from some schools (Harvard, Columbia, NYU, Chicago) ocurred because many big NYC firms no offered some of their previous 2L SA's. This happened at some firms in other markets, but not to the same extent. C/O 2011 is different because firms at the last OCI adjusted and dramatically decreased the # of 2L SA's they brought on.

You're right that things will look even worse for the C/O 2011, but this data still indicates that the initial adjustment through no-offers hit the T14 schools harder than the majority of T1 schools, perhaps because the NYC market is where most of the cuts occurred. I don't see why this trend would be likely to change with 2L OCI recruiting, if the non NYC markets are still faring relatively better than the NYC market, the T14 schools are still likely to see the bigger drop in biglaw hiring relative to peak levels.

Also, old clerkship data shouldn't matter much, for federal judges anyway, they still will have the same budgets for hiring clerks that they had a few years ago, so there is no reason to suspect that clerkship placement would have changed significantly.

jcl2 wrote:You're right that things will look even worse for the C/O 2011, but this data still indicates that the initial adjustment through no-offers hit the T14 schools harder than the majority of T1 schools, perhaps because the NYC market is where most of the cuts occurred. I don't see why this trend would be likely to change with 2L OCI recruiting, if the non NYC markets are still faring relatively better than the NYC market, the T14 schools are still likely to see the bigger drop in biglaw hiring relative to peak levels.

If you look, it hit schools the most that place more folks into elite NYC. The thinking is that NYC was a little ahead of other firms in making cutbacks, which makes sense. Seriously, if you look at 2L's from ND and UIUC that have posted in the employment forum most say their schools felt things much worse this OCI. You really can't look at this chart and just think that things will be worse for c/o 2011 but these relative proportions will remain the same and everything will be worse by the same scale. We don't have much hard evidence to back up what we think that proportion will look like, just anecdotes from here we can try to paint a picture from.

jcl2 wrote:Also, old clerkship data shouldn't matter much, for federal judges anyway, they still will have the same budgets for hiring clerks that they had a few years ago, so there is no reason to suspect that clerkship placement would have changed significantly.

The absolute number of clerks will remain the same, but the breakout by school could change because you will now have people no offered from Harvard and Columbia competing for a clerkship that wouldn't have done so in the previous year. The debate is as to whether 2008 is a semi-reasonable proxy to use in the absence of anything better.

EDIT: After re-reading this I see it may have come off as condescending since we already agreed that NYC got hit worse in these stats. The main point is that the 2009 NYC no-offers were sort of the tip of the iceberg and what ensued elsewhere has not yet been indicated in these stats.

jcl2 wrote:You're right that things will look even worse for the C/O 2011, but this data still indicates that the initial adjustment through no-offers hit the T14 schools harder than the majority of T1 schools, perhaps because the NYC market is where most of the cuts occurred. I don't see why this trend would be likely to change with 2L OCI recruiting, if the non NYC markets are still faring relatively better than the NYC market, the T14 schools are still likely to see the bigger drop in biglaw hiring relative to peak levels.

If you look, it hit schools the most that place more folks into elite NYC. The thinking is that NYC was a little ahead of other firms in making cutbacks, which makes sense. Seriously, if you look at 2L's from ND and UIUC that have posted in the employment forum most say their schools felt things much worse this OCI. You really can't look at this chart and just think that things will be worse for c/o 2011 but these relative proportions will remain the same and everything will be worse by the same scale. We don't have much hard evidence to back up what we think that proportion will look like, just anecdotes from here we can try to paint a picture from.

jcl2 wrote:Also, old clerkship data shouldn't matter much, for federal judges anyway, they still will have the same budgets for hiring clerks that they had a few years ago, so there is no reason to suspect that clerkship placement would have changed significantly.

The absolute number of clerks will remain the same, but the breakout by school could change because you will now have people no offered from Harvard and Columbia competing for a clerkship that wouldn't have done so in the previous year. The debate is as to whether 2008 is a semi-reasonable proxy to use in the absence of anything better.

+1

I'd also just point out, again, that the c/o 2009 was the year all hell broke lose. By 2010 and 2011, T14 students will have presumably adjusted their expectations downward and we will really start to see schools outside the T14 feel the pain.

jcl2 wrote:You're right that things will look even worse for the C/O 2011, but this data still indicates that the initial adjustment through no-offers hit the T14 schools harder than the majority of T1 schools, perhaps because the NYC market is where most of the cuts occurred. I don't see why this trend would be likely to change with 2L OCI recruiting, if the non NYC markets are still faring relatively better than the NYC market, the T14 schools are still likely to see the bigger drop in biglaw hiring relative to peak levels.

If you look, it hit schools the most that place more folks into elite NYC. The thinking is that NYC was a little ahead of other firms in making cutbacks, which makes sense. Seriously, if you look at 2L's from ND and UIUC that have posted in the employment forum most say their schools felt things much worse this OCI. You really can't look at this chart and just think that things will be worse for c/o 2011 but these relative proportions will remain the same and everything will be worse by the same scale. We don't have much hard evidence to back up what we think that proportion will look like, just anecdotes from here we can try to paint a picture from.

jcl2 wrote:Also, old clerkship data shouldn't matter much, for federal judges anyway, they still will have the same budgets for hiring clerks that they had a few years ago, so there is no reason to suspect that clerkship placement would have changed significantly.

The absolute number of clerks will remain the same, but the breakout by school could change because you will now have people no offered from Harvard and Columbia competing for a clerkship that wouldn't have done so in the previous year. The debate is as to whether 2008 is a semi-reasonable proxy to use in the absence of anything better.

+1

I'd also just point out, again, that the c/o 2009 was the year all hell broke lose. By 2010 and 2011, T14 students will have presumably adjusted their expectations downward and we will really start to see schools outside the T14 feel the pain.

It will definitely be interesting to see the data for the classes of 2010 and 2011. It stands to reason that those classes will be hit the hardest by the recession across the board and regardless of how the relative impacts are distributed between schools, at least with regards to getting jobs through 2L OCI. I am fairly optimistic that things will begin to turn around for the class of 2012 though, and even more so for the class of 2013, especially since most of us are going in with much more realistic expectations than people who started law school in 06-08.

jcl2 wrote:You're right that things will look even worse for the C/O 2011, but this data still indicates that the initial adjustment through no-offers hit the T14 schools harder than the majority of T1 schools, perhaps because the NYC market is where most of the cuts occurred.

There are two explanations for this, both of which are based on the nature of how the cuts for C/O 2009 happened (no-offers):

1) The top schools send the most people into biglaw, and thus bore the brunt of the cuts.2) The top schools send most people into NYC biglaw, where the bulk of the cuts happened.

The first point is pretty simple to understand. Say 30% of 2L SAs got no-offered. If your school sent 70% of folks into biglaw, 30% of them getting no-offered means your placement drops 21%, to 49%. If your school sent 25% of folks into biglaw, then 30% of them getting no-offered means that placement drops 7.5%, to 17.5%. Since the no-offers didn't follow a pattern by school, the simple percentages make it look like the T14 took a disproportionate hit.

Now, neither of these points necessarily bears on what things will look like at OCI. Firms handed out no-offers without regard to school, but they certainly consider schools when handing out offers in the first place. And while many (most?) T14 students went to NYC and got hit disproportionately hard because of the losses in that market, that doesn't mean they are limited to that market. If NYC continues to be weak in the coming years, they'll get jobs in other markets --- which wasn't really an option for C/O 2009 since they'd already accepted their positions in NYC.

tamlyric wrote:What's with all the vitriol in this thread? Seems pretty pointless to me, unless, of course, people are just trying to entertain themselves. Can we not all agree that the OP was provisionally useful or informative?

No.

Really? Why not? It's a pretty weak claim.

There are several pages of arguments to look through if you want to understand the position of those who think that the OP's post was not useful. (I'm in the "not useful" camp.) The argument heats up around page 15 ITT, if you're looking for a place to start reading. Let's not rehash the arguments again.

rayiner wrote: And while many (most?) T14 students went to NYC and got hit disproportionately hard because of the losses in that market, that doesn't mean they are limited to that market. If NYC continues to be weak in the coming years, they'll get jobs in other markets --- which wasn't really an option for C/O 2009 since they'd already accepted their positions in NYC.

Anecdotally, doesn't the opinion seem to be that NYC SA offers were not disproportionately hard to get for current 2L's relative to many other markets?

As to the dispersing into other markets theory, I buy this to an extent, but not to the point that schools without a real historical presence in a region are going to just come in and displace schools that do have one. For example, would Atlanta firms start to hire NYU grads over Vandy grads?

jcl2 wrote:You're right that things will look even worse for the C/O 2011, but this data still indicates that the initial adjustment through no-offers hit the T14 schools harder than the majority of T1 schools, perhaps because the NYC market is where most of the cuts occurred. I don't see why this trend would be likely to change with 2L OCI recruiting, if the non NYC markets are still faring relatively better than the NYC market, the T14 schools are still likely to see the bigger drop in biglaw hiring relative to peak levels.

If you look, it hit schools the most that place more folks into elite NYC. The thinking is that NYC was a little ahead of other firms in making cutbacks, which makes sense. Seriously, if you look at 2L's from ND and UIUC that have posted in the employment forum most say their schools felt things much worse this OCI. You really can't look at this chart and just think that things will be worse for c/o 2011 but these relative proportions will remain the same and everything will be worse by the same scale. We don't have much hard evidence to back up what we think that proportion will look like, just anecdotes from here we can try to paint a picture from.

jcl2 wrote:Also, old clerkship data shouldn't matter much, for federal judges anyway, they still will have the same budgets for hiring clerks that they had a few years ago, so there is no reason to suspect that clerkship placement would have changed significantly.

The absolute number of clerks will remain the same, but the breakout by school could change because you will now have people no offered from Harvard and Columbia competing for a clerkship that wouldn't have done so in the previous year. The debate is as to whether 2008 is a semi-reasonable proxy to use in the absence of anything better.

+1

I'd also just point out, again, that the c/o 2009 was the year all hell broke lose. By 2010 and 2011, T14 students will have presumably adjusted their expectations downward and we will really start to see schools outside the T14 feel the pain.

It will definitely be interesting to see the data for the classes of 2010 and 2011. It stands to reason that those classes will be hit the hardest by the recession across the board and regardless of how the relative impacts are distributed between schools, at least with regards to getting jobs through 2L OCI. I am fairly optimistic that things will begin to turn around for the class of 2012 though, and even more so for the class of 2013, especially since most of us are going in with much more realistic expectations than people who started law school in 06-08.

I'm actually somewhat optimistic that the 2010 and 2011 figures won't be as bad as anticipated for the T14 as a whole, but I think schools ranked 15-30ish that fared relatively well (I'm looking at you, Vandy) in '09 are going to take a good hit from Mr. ITE in those rankings.

rayiner wrote: And while many (most?) T14 students went to NYC and got hit disproportionately hard because of the losses in that market, that doesn't mean they are limited to that market. If NYC continues to be weak in the coming years, they'll get jobs in other markets --- which wasn't really an option for C/O 2009 since they'd already accepted their positions in NYC.

Anecdotally, doesn't the opinion seem to be that NYC SA offers were not disproportionately hard to get for current 2L's relative to many other markets?

As to the dispersing into other markets theory, I buy this to an extent, but not to the point that schools without a real historical presence in a region are going to just come in and displace schools that do have one. For example, would Atlanta firms start to hire NYU grads over Vandy grads?

Is the NYU person from Atlanta? Then yeah.

This is why I'm a big advocate of going to T14 in a place where you don't already have ties.

Last edited by RVP11 on Thu Feb 25, 2010 3:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

rayiner wrote: And while many (most?) T14 students went to NYC and got hit disproportionately hard because of the losses in that market, that doesn't mean they are limited to that market. If NYC continues to be weak in the coming years, they'll get jobs in other markets --- which wasn't really an option for C/O 2009 since they'd already accepted their positions in NYC.

Anecdotally, doesn't the opinion seem to be that NYC SA offers were not disproportionately hard to get for current 2L's relative to many other markets?

As to the dispersing into other markets theory, I buy this to an extent, but not to the point that schools without a real historical presence in a region are going to just come in and displace schools that do have one. For example, would Atlanta firms start to hire NYU grads over Vandy grads?

I think the top Vandy grads will still be sitting pretty in the South, but students with typically borderline (or even slightly better) are going to be hurt by the influx of Duke, UVA, etc., applicants. Maybe not so much NYU grads, though, since it is well-known that the South hates hipsters.

Stringer Bell wrote:Anecdotally, doesn't the opinion seem to be that NYC SA offers were not disproportionately hard to get for current 2L's relative to many other markets?

NYC accounted for half of NLJ250 job losses but only 25% of NLJ250 lawyers total. If no-offers were proportional to job losses, it's fairly clear that NYC got hit the hardest. The prevailing opinion seems to be that NYC was still the easiest market to get this year for 2L OCI. That's not inconsistent with the previous data point --- they seemed to have shed their excess capacity early and are hiring at reduced (but proportional) levels now.

Stringer Bell wrote:As to the dispersing into other markets theory, I buy this to an extent, but not to the point that schools without a real historical presence in a region are going to just come in and displace schools that do have one.

I'm thinking more like NU grades taking NLJ250 jobs in markets like Columbus or Indianapolis, or UVA grades taking jobs in markets like Richmond and Atlanta, not really NYU grads targeting Atlanta...

Yep. We had about 14+ pages of gratuitous trolling mixed with a tiny amount of data interpretation, 5 or so pages arguing about the relevance of the data incorporated, a wise post pointing out some of the futility of our trolling, a little more trolling and just now a page of a semi-legitimate discussion in response to a posters question. Not bad.

Stringer Bell wrote:Anecdotally, doesn't the opinion seem to be that NYC SA offers were not disproportionately hard to get for current 2L's relative to many other markets?

NYC accounted for half of NLJ250 job losses but only 25% of NLJ250 lawyers total. If no-offers were proportional to job losses, it's fairly clear that NYC got hit the hardest. The prevailing opinion seems to be that NYC was still the easiest market to get this year for 2L OCI. That's not inconsistent with the previous data point --- they seemed to have shed their excess capacity early and are hiring at reduced (but proportional) levels now.

Stringer Bell wrote:As to the dispersing into other markets theory, I buy this to an extent, but not to the point that schools without a real historical presence in a region are going to just come in and displace schools that do have one.

I'm thinking more like NU grades taking NLJ250 jobs in markets like Columbus or Indianapolis, or UVA grades taking jobs in markets like Richmond and Atlanta, not really NYU grads targeting Atlanta...

I think the latter is definitely going to happen more often, except not in NLJ250, but more so midlaw/small law.

awesomepossum wrote:That's a little more sensible but still really really surprising. I didn't think U of M and UVA would have done that well. What the heck happened to NYU, Berkeley and Penn who did significantly worse?

where did you get the clerkship info btw?

NYU has a rep for public service work.

Why in the world would it make sense to judge NYU on a BIGLAW+CLERKSHIP standard when it advertises itself to the 3rd category that isn't counted here?

awesomepossum wrote:That's a little more sensible but still really really surprising. I didn't think U of M and UVA would have done that well. What the heck happened to NYU, Berkeley and Penn who did significantly worse?

where did you get the clerkship info btw?

NYU has a rep for public service work.

Why in the world would it make sense to judge NYU on a BIGLAW+CLERKSHIP standard when it advertises itself to the 3rd category that isn't counted here?

Because it makes UVA look better for having a terrible LRAP program and making all of their students self-select out of PI.

Borhas wrote:so can some adventurous young troll come up with a list including NLJ250+Clerkships+Government jobs?

Didn't someone say that the difference in government work between the schools wasn't that great? But to be honest I don't really know. Also, what is considered prestigious government work, the UN? Mayor's Office? congressional internships?

From my experience, in Arkansas and Louisiana, the South will take the best southern school (even if it's ranked 99th) over anyone else. I know, the global economy, etc. etc. etc. But don't hold your breath. Expect the market in The South, especially among those companies actually owned and managed from The South, to be the exclusive territory of Southern schools. They wouldn't take a Standford grad if they crawled through glass for them.